If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hmmm. I could go Intel/Geforce for my last gaming pc then. I#m not sure I'd trust AMD (or any company) under a new direction a new owner could point it. Seen too many businesses bought just for a slash and burn investment. "Last?" You say. Well, I'll probably go linux after that, as Win8 and the entire industry seems far to lost right now. So my next purchase should hold out for a long time (as this generation is already holding out over 5+ years).

The state of AMD has been a problem for a while now. They're firing engineering staff, have nothing major coming up in the near future. Their PC level CPU lineup has fallen out of it's niche and the GPUs aren't really trashing NVidia right now. There's still room to recover, especially on the back of decent server hardware that's a good chunk of their revenue, but it better happen fast. We really can't afford to loose them.

Of course they're looking to sell. They've totally cratered, they already sold off their manufacturing, and that hasn't seemed to given them the breathing space to needed to get their tech competitive.

Intel own the CPU space, Nvidia have their ARM designs as a hedge, AMD looks isolated. There are rumors over next-gen console tech wins for AMD, but right now, the company does not look good.

The competition from AMD right now might as well not exist. Their CPUs have been inferior for a few generations now. The turning point was when the Core2Duo series came out, and since then AMD have only really been worth considering in the budget sector. Since the Core series though even then they're getting beaten - the Intel CPUs might cost a bit more but they're worth it in most cases.

We've had a thread on the decline of AMD in the CPU sector, and I'll repeat what I said then - I won't lose sleep for a company that's putting out an inferior product. They can't compete, their CPUs aren't as good, they couldn't identify a niche, there's nothing really to lament here.

Their GPUs on the other hand... now that's a bit of a problem, but given how bad their drivers have been (particularly with new-release games) I'm not 100% certain that they've been doing a great job there either.

Not really true. There's a lovely sweet-spot in buying an i5-2500K (or similar) BUT it's not a cheap option and not everyone can afford that.

AMD offer mobo/CPU packages which cost half what that costs and give somewhat more than half the performance (a cheap mobo+965 Phenom is a decent enough gaming platform for a little over £100ish)

They also offer consistently better value GPUs if you're not looking at high-end stuff - if your budget is under £150 (and a LOT of people's budget is in there) you get FAR FAR more from AMD than you would from nVidia (and have done for years)

Even if their stuff isn't brilliant - do you think Intel would have made the stuff they've made if they had no competition at all - of course they wouldn't have. They'd have made inferior kit which cost more money - and if AMD drop out of the CPU/GPU market that is EXACTLY what will happen.

Problem is, the PC market is already dangerously stagnant - people aren't upgrading/kit isn't getting cheaper (indeed a lot of things are actually increasing in price) - this could easily trigger a massive bubble to burst in the PC hardware market and a return to laptops which cost £600+ and gaming desktops which cost £1000+ for everyone.

Not really true. There's a lovely sweet-spot in buying an i5-2500K (or similar) BUT it's not a cheap option and not everyone can afford that. AMD offer mobo/CPU packages which cost half what that costs and give somewhat more than half the performance (a cheap mobo+965 Phenom is a decent enough gaming platform for a little over £100ish)

But then the argument is "save up and get something that's much better and lasts longer." Really, I don't see anybody recommending AMD CPUs these days. That's a far cry from the early 2000s when the P4 was laughed about and AMD was the pick of the litter. If you were stuck I guess you could buy one, but otherwise it's worth saving up and getting the better package. If you're just looking for a business PC that does word processing, pretty much any CPU will do the job. For gaming though? You're far better off getting the Intel.

AMD have consistently been putting out CPUs that underperform in comparison to Intel CPUs, and sometimes the price difference isn't enough to excuse it. Hell Bulldozer was a major disappointment, Piledriver isn't much better. Really some of their older CPUs are the better pick, and that's not a good thing. You can argue about software not making proper use of so many cores etc but it's irrelevant if you buy the product today and it's useless.

Originally Posted by trjp

They also offer consistently better value GPUs...

Except I was talking about Intel and the CPU sector, so this is irrelevant.

But funnily enough we actually like this period of stagnation. It's a hell of a lot cheaper for us. I don't miss the upgrade treadmill of the 90s and early to mid 2000s. The rise of consoles means that my hardware lasts for a lot longer, which is much cheaper for me. Really I don't see anybody lamenting the slower pace of tech. As for the bubble argument - I think you're oversimplifying here.

"Save up and get something which is better and lasts longer" is "man maths" and you're missing the possibility people don't NEED anything better. You're also missing the key point - that if AMD didn't offer these cheaper alternatives, Intels' stuff would be less-good and cost more...

Right now I can build a basic 'games capable' PC for £300ish using AMD bits - an i5-2500K/nVidia system may 'rock' but realistically it's going to be north of £500 (perhaps more if you're going to balance all the bits) and I might not have that extra £200+ - might not even want to spend that much on a PC - I might not even need the extra oomph.

My PC is a tool - I create things with it. Truth be told tho, I could do that on my £200 refurb laptop (which I only use for fixing stuff on-site and a bit of writing) so every penny I spend on my desktop has to be justified in some way and, frankly, it's not easy to do that (esp as my most demanding software tool is single threaded - I'd be better-off with a really BIG 1 core CPU!) :)

Example: Many people believe the current "stupidity pricing" of HDDs has nothing to do with Taiwanese floods/earthquakes etc. - it was simply the aftermath of 2 HDD makers being absorbed into another 2, removing competition in a trice. SSDs leapt in and, whilst cheaper, are taking chunks of money from people over-and-above their HDD budgets (e.g. it's "new" money).

Laptop sales are dropping too - people are switching to smartphones and iPads or just sticking with their old laptop which isn't really much worse than the new ones. The speed with which places like Asda completely revamped their range of laptops bang-on the Win8 release (W7 machines returned to warehouses the day before) shows how desperate they are to generate sales on these - and unless laptop sales do pickup, you can expect significant rises in the cost of those too (and I can remember when a decent laptop cost over £600 - it wasn't funny).

I can't actually believe you'd think stagnation is a good thing in a field like computing - without better hardware people can't make more demanding software and that's what we're all about here isn't it?

AMD not competing in the CPU or GPU marker is a disaster, frankly - it would be the end of Moores Law (if that's not ended already).

Important to remember that Intel used illegal tactics to destroy AMD slaes when AMD chips were the better alternative. AMD never got the increase in market share and their due rewards in the form a big profits from their work.

AMD could not beef up their R&D, and when Intel decided to squash them by devoting resources to x86 performace chip design, AMD couldn't fight back. it is a pretty good example of how a company that dominates a market can kill off competition with virtually no consequences.

Intel is run by immoral people who have no problem with breaking laws if it means more money, so if AMD leaves look for some real expensive stagnation in the desktop space.

"Save up and get something which is better and lasts longer" is "man maths" and you're missing the possibility people don't NEED anything better.

So basically we recommend inferior products just because we presume they don't need anything better. Right... I think that might be a bit short-sighted. While I get where you're coming from, and while I sort of concede that in the low end sector an AMD CPU might be viable, for gaming and higher end applications I don't see how you can recommend an AMD CPU. In fact I don't see anybody recommending them anymore, unless they have an agenda to push.

Originally Posted by trjp

Right now I can build a basic 'games capable' PC for £300ish using AMD bits - an i5-2500K/nVidia system may 'rock' but realistically it's going to be north of £500 (perhaps more if you're going to balance all the bits) and I might not have that extra £200+ - might not even want to spend that much on a PC - I might not even need the extra oomph.

I disagree. The "mid-range" gaming system on the cheap is nonsense. If you're going to be in PC gaming you need to be in the higher mid range, which is not the sub-$500 market. Otherwise you're barely punching above a console, and if that's the case you might as well just get a console. Even then the later AMD CPUs aren't very good, even in gaming. The Phenom II line is still their best stuff.

Originally Posted by trjp

(and I can remember when a decent laptop cost over £600 - it wasn't funny).

So can I. I remember my dad got a ThinkPad with a Pentium @ 100Mhz or something, this was back in the late 90s. It cost over $1k (Australia tax partly to blame I guess). But even then there are a lot of economic factors that go into affecting the price of various components, and competition from AMD (which is remarkably limited, AMD CPUs aren't overly common in most of the major laptop lines these days) is not the deciding factor as you seem to suggest.

Originally Posted by trjp

I can't actually believe you'd think stagnation is a good thing in a field like computing - without better hardware people can't make more demanding software and that's what we're all about here isn't it?

Did I say that? Nope. Go back and read it again - I said that most of us are happy that the hardware wars cooled down, because at the previous rate things were going out of date within 6 months. As it is people hate it when hardware becomes obsolete (remember, you ranted about how Win8 doesn't support your P4!) so not being on an upgrade treadmill is great. The 90s and 2000s were damn expensive for tech, and that was with competition. The early 2000s sucked especially - it used to be all we needed was a fast CPU, now we had to buy GPUs as well to keep up with the new standards. Remember the leaps from Dx7 to 8, and then to 9, with new shader models that required new hardware support?

Stagnation isn't a bad thing, but you haven't demonstrated how not having AMD making their (inferior) CPUs would cause stagnation. The demand for more processing power is driven by software demands, not competition from AMD because they're not putting up much of a fight as it is in the CPU sector. Software keeps getting more and more demanding, and hardware manufacturers have to meet that demand. Intel was largely unopposed in the 90s until AMD got their Athlon chip out. Did we stagnate in the 90s? Not if you listen to RPS posters - it was the golden age apparently.

[QUOTE=Namdrol;215073AMD could not beef up their R&D[/QUOTE]
This is true. But that said I have to question why AMD decided to go off and release CPUs with lots of cores when their single-threaded performance was so terrible. It may be forward thinking, but software support is so limited that it's pointlessly crippling the system.

Even if their stuff isn't brilliant - do you think Intel would have made the stuff they've made if they had no competition at all - of course they wouldn't have.

Which would work, if a) the consumer market was in any way significant and b) we completely ignore smart phones and tablets. Consumer hardware has always been a kick back from the business market, where not only do Intel face competition from other chip makers (Oracle, Motorola and Fujitsu for example) but also competing technologies (why pay for a physical box when you can virtualise for next to nothing?). Releases to the consumer market are a lot like console ports - they're a means of wringing out maximum profits from production, not usually the main focus.

but you haven't demonstrated how not having AMD making their (inferior) CPUs would cause stagnation. The demand for more processing power is driven by software demands, not competition from AMD because they're not putting up much of a fight as it is in the CPU sector. Software keeps getting more and more demanding, and hardware manufacturers have to meet that demand. Intel was largely unopposed in the 90s until AMD got their Athlon chip out. Did we stagnate in the 90s? Not if you listen to RPS posters - it was the golden age apparently.

can we agree that competition amongst businesses is good for consumers because it keeps prices down and makes businesses work harder to improve their products?

If you can agree with the above, why would intel being the only chip maker for desktop computers not be a bad thing? Even the milquetoast competition from 2012 AMD is better than nothing.

Further, where is Intel spending their r&d money now? On power efficient chips & graphics. Why? because there is competition from ARM and Nvidia. The enthusiast desktop space is going to be ignored by Intel because there is no competition.

Originally Posted by soldant

This is true. But that said I have to question why AMD decided to go off and release CPUs with lots of cores when their single-threaded performance was so terrible. It may be forward thinking, but software support is so limited that it's pointlessly crippling the system.

So basically we recommend inferior products just because we presume they don't need anything better. Right... I think that might be a bit short-sighted.

I disagree. The "mid-range" gaming system on the cheap is nonsense. If you're going to be in PC gaming you need to be in the higher mid range, which is not the sub-$500 market. Otherwise you're barely punching above a console, and if that's the case you might as well just get a console. Even then the later AMD CPUs aren't very good, even in gaming. The Phenom II line is still their best stuff.

Jesus christ what am I even reading. Barely punching about a console? Need to be in the high end? You don't need to shit out ridiculous statements to justify your own spendings.

Good enough on this context means you wouldn't see any benifit from going for anything more expensive...

Until the 2500k was released amd offered by far the best value for your money in gaming WITHOUT compromise.

A phenom II 955 BE was massive overkill for gaming until battlefield 3 was released, and even then it was and is enough to maintain good framerates.

A 3 core phenom II (which had the full cache amount and features of the 955BE, and is the single highest bang for buck cpu ever released) with unlocked multiplier and a matching motherboard with crossfire support and all the connections and ports you could need cost less than 200 euros combined in 2009.
These cpus overclocked extremely well to and beyond performance similar to a stock i7 920 (the point being, since you'll be drinking the 800x600 low settings benchmark Kool aid too vigorously to notice, that you could get more perfomance than you needed for gaming and then some for under 200 euros).

You could go comfortably go AMD from 2008-2011 and spend less than half than you would on an intel setup without sacrificing a single frame in games.

The i5-2500k is a fast, nicely overclocking, expensive cpu that is an attractive buy for those willing to spend more, but even today a phenom II is still a capable cpu that is a valid budget option.

Amd did not butcher their yield increasing mid range parts (e.g by locking the ability to overclock, or cutting cache) and they were able to compete in the gaming market (not in the photoshop/video editing one, but this is a gaming forum).
Hardware in 2009 was dirt cheap because both ati+nvidia and amd+intel were in HUGE price war over the midrange market. The value back then was amazing for gamers, 600 euros bought you a kickass high end gaming pc that chewed up all games at 60+ fps.

You've seen what happens once amd can't compete anymore (bulldozer) and when they choose not to compete (500 euro high end cards in 2012 vs 300 euro high end cards in 2009), prices go through the roof and value is impossible to find.

Either you don't understand how competition works, or you are desperately trying to justify buying an i7 for gaming (you're probably one of those people who bought a 600W psu while the rest of us who lived on planet earth were running a 180W gtx260 on a 400W psu) or you are just retarded.
i'm going to go with the intel fanboy Kool aid option since that is the least insulting one.

The games where my budget phenom II can't maintain a minimum framerate of over 60 fps can still be counted on one hand (ns2, bf3, sc2 ,gw2 -i5 2500k @4Ghz still drops to 20 fps in wvw btw , shit game is shit-), and while I'd like to get an ivy bridge or SB 2500k to get higher minimum framerates in those games, it's a poor value proposition when the entry price for that is 350 euros right now...
You may not want to hear it after spending so much money but even 4 years later these value range cpus are still good enough for gaming at 3-4x the framerate you'd get on consoles.

edit: just for reference I run finicky's listed games (mostly high settings, a few medium) at about 40 FPS on a phenom II x4 paired with an HD6950. Total price of those two things was about $250 US. Probably less now. I don't think anything from Intel/Nvidia will compare without spending almost twice as much.

And Catalyst drivers have been flawless for years now. At least in the hundreds of games I play.

I heard a rumor that Apple intends to develop their own chips for all their computers and mobile devices, owing to disappointment in rather high power consumption of intel chips. Is that possible Apple and AMD would shake hands?